Open
Conversation
Contributor
|
The provided information by the Rust language server is not straightforward, see also here "Completion response says "isIncomplete": true even when the total number of completion items is two #7649" According to the language server protocol specification shall provide a hint to the client that the provided completion list is only temporarily and will be soon replaced by another list so it is not necessary to apply any filtering to this completion list, because it will be lost anyway. |
Author
|
Interesting, thanks for the precision. What do you advise then? |
gcanat
added a commit
to gcanat/lsp
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 7, 2025
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I try to setup your LSP plugin for Rust using
rust-analyzer, and I noticed that more results were shown in the completion menu. After diving into your code, I noticed that the following condition was not aligned with the comment just below. By removing the negation, it somehow filters properly the items. I am not sure about the consequences of such a change, but after the change it works as it was initially supposed to be.